Bowd Christopher, Tavares Ivan M, Medeiros Felipe A, Zangwill Linda M, Sample Pamela A, Weinreb Robert N
Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, California 92093-0946, USA.
Ophthalmology. 2007 Jul;114(7):1259-65. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.10.020. Epub 2007 Feb 6.
To compare the strength of the structure-function association between scanning laser polarimetry-measured retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness and visual sensitivity. Two methods of corneal compensation were evaluated, variable corneal compensation (VCC) and enhanced corneal compensation (ECC).
Observational case series.
One hundred twenty-seven glaucoma (repeatable abnormal visual fields [VF] by pattern standard deviation and/or glaucoma hemifield test) or glaucoma suspect (glaucomatous-appearing discs by photograph assessment without field defects) participants in the University of California, San Diego Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study.
One eye of each participant was imaged using GDx VCC and GDx ECC on the same day. Visual fields tested using the Humphrey Field Analyzer (with Swedish interactive threshold algorithm) were obtained within 6 months of imaging.
The associations (R2) using linear and logarithmic regression between RNFL thicknesses measured in 6 sectors (inferior, inferotemporal, temporal, superotemporal, superior, nasal) with VCC and ECC and VF sensitivities (decibel threshold measurements) measured in 6 corresponding sectors were compared. Comparisons were made using paired t tests on the log-transformed absolute values of regression residuals.
Using GDx VCC, 32 scans had a typical scan score (TSS) < or = 78 (lowest quartile) and no ECC scans had TSS<86. Most RNFL thickness measurements obtained using GDx VCC were significantly greater than those measured using GDx ECC. Regional structure-function associations (R2) ranged from 0.03 (temporal RNFL) to 0.22 (superotemporal RNFL) for VCC and from 0.01 (temporal RNFL) to 0.26 (superotemporal RNFL) for ECC. Associations generally were slightly stronger for ECC than for VCC, although these differences were only significant for inferotemporal RNFL (R2 = 0.19 and 0.11, for ECC and VCC, respectively).
The RNFL thickness associations with VF sensitivity are stronger using ECC compared with VCC, suggesting that ECC provides a better cross-sectional representation of visual function than VCC.
比较扫描激光偏振仪测量的视网膜神经纤维层(RNFL)厚度与视觉敏感度之间结构-功能关联的强度。评估了两种角膜补偿方法,即可变角膜补偿(VCC)和增强角膜补偿(ECC)。
观察性病例系列。
加利福尼亚大学圣地亚哥分校青光眼诊断创新研究中的127名青光眼患者(通过模式标准差和/或青光眼半视野检测,视野检查结果可重复异常)或青光眼疑似患者(经照片评估,视盘外观呈青光眼性改变但无视野缺损)。
在同一天使用GDx VCC和GDx ECC对每位参与者的一只眼睛进行成像。在成像后6个月内使用Humphrey视野分析仪(采用瑞典交互式阈值算法)进行视野检测。
比较使用线性和对数回归分析,在6个扇区(下方、颞下、颞侧、颞上、上方、鼻侧)测量的VCC和ECC的RNFL厚度与在6个相应扇区测量的视野敏感度(分贝阈值测量值)之间的关联(R2)。使用配对t检验对回归残差的对数转换绝对值进行比较。
使用GDx VCC时,32次扫描的典型扫描分数(TSS)≤78(最低四分位数),而使用GDx ECC时没有扫描的TSS<86。使用GDx VCC获得的大多数RNFL厚度测量值显著大于使用GDx ECC获得的测量值。VCC的区域结构-功能关联(R2)范围为0.03(颞侧RNFL)至0.22(颞上RNFL),ECC的范围为0.01(颞侧RNFL)至0.26(颞上RNFL)。ECC的关联通常比VCC略强,尽管这些差异仅在颞下RNFL中显著(ECC和VCC的R2分别为0.19和0.11)。
与VCC相比,使用ECC时RNFL厚度与视野敏感度之间的关联更强,这表明ECC比VCC能更好地反映视觉功能的横断面情况。